MAHALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu-Kolavikkannan @ Nagaraj, who has been branded as 'Goonda' and detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by the detention order dated 27.12.2007 passed by the second respondent.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mrs.R.Subadradevi has raised two grounds in order to assail the impugned detention order. It is her first and foremost contention that the detenu was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari on 18.12.2007 and the Court passed an order as, "the accused not seen through video conferencing system due to power failure, produce on 26.12.2007," but the translated version in Tamil shows as if the remand was extended till 26.12.2007. The error crept into the translation process has very much prejudiced the rights of the detenu. Secondly, she submits that while the date of detention was 27.12.2007, there was no material on record to show that beyond 26.12.2007, the remand of the detenu was extended and in fact on 27.12.2007, there was no valid remand so as to make the detaining authority to reach the subjective satisfaction.

(3.) SO far as the existence of a valid remand on 27.12.2007 is concerned, there is no material available among the records to show that beyond 26.12.2007, the remand was extended. The respondent-State has not shown that a valid order of extension of remand was in force on 27.12.2007 on the date of passing of the detention order. Without such material, the detaining authority had come to the conclusion that the detenu was on remand on 27.12.2007 as well. This aspect would seriously prejudice the valuable rights of the detenu. We are of the considered view that on the above said two grounds, the detention order would not stand which deserves to be quashed.